Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will get the Deputy a copy.

This needs to happen urgently and the Government will drive this. It is clear there has to be a seismic shift in how Irish Water interfaces with the public. Clarity and certainty has to be given to members of the public about the charges they will pay. I assure the House that the Government is working with Ervia and Irish Water to ensure these issues are addressed and addressed immediately. I also accept that there needs to be more explanation of why we have embarked on this highly ambitious water sector reform programme, what we have achieved in a short time and what we can achieve for the long-term future of our public water system. I would like to use this debate as an opportunity to provide clarity on many of these issues.

It is important, in the first instance, to remind the House of the purpose of our reforms. The traditional water services system was in need of fundamental change. Water infrastructure is deficient and inadequate as a consequence of decades of under investment and of not having a truly, national approach that could maximise the impact of investment. The result has been a national leakage rate of 49%; inadequate wastewater treatment, with untreated sewage discharging into 42 urban areas, for example, putting rivers and bathing waters at risk of pollution; Ireland going on formal notice of an EU infringement case, requiring wastewater improvements at 66 urban centres; a total of 22,181 people are on boil water notices, and a further 945,000 people dependent on drinking water supplies at risk of failing required standards - these include the major but antiquated drinking water schemes on the Lee Road in Cork and the Vartry Scheme in Dublin, both critical for our two major cities; and insufficient supply for the greater Dublin area. While most major European capital cities have a spare capacity of between 15 and 20%, Dublin has a surplus capacity ranging between 1% and 4%.

Future challenges also make the need for a more cost effective, efficient and nationally orientated system imperative. Our population is increasing, and is forecast to increase in the coming decades. Our economy is recovering, bringing with it added water demand for industry and agriculture and we have to meet these challenges. These challenges result in large part from decades of under investment, with the bulk of that time presided over by Governments led by the party that tabled the motion. A total of €600 million should be invested every year in capital infrastructure to ensure our public system of treatment plants and networks is adequate for modern requirements and operations, yet recent investment levels have stood at just over €300 million per annum.

Under investment is not the system's only difficulty. Local authorities have demonstrated commitment and great dedication to water services for well over a century, but 34 separate water services authorities providing services and infrastructure unilaterally for the most part have not, and could not have, achieved the best public water system. An example of this is in the lack of economies of scale identified in the independent assessment on establishing a public water utility. Operating expenditure per connection, for example, is more than twice the average of UK water companies.

The only way these deficiencies could be rectified, the infrastructure deficit removed, the problems of quality addressed and inefficiencies tackled was by creating a single, national utility and a new funding model. All parties will be aware that the public water and wastewater systems will not improve without a national approach. All parties will be also aware that the best way to secure the necessary expansion in infrastructure and to ensure spending on water services is accountable and the standards of quality expected by the public are achieved is by creating a direct relationship between the water user and the service provider where funding goes from one to the other, and where the expected standards are received in return. We are all aware of the previous funding model for water services. However, Members should ask the people on boil notices over 12 years if this model has worked for them. If water is condemned forever to compete with health, education and housing for essential funding, we simply will not be able to address the major difficulties that exist within our water system and we, as a Government, will be condemned for not facing up to this reality.

Against this backdrop, I would like to take this opportunity to dispel certain myths that have grown around the establishment of Irish water. First, it cannot be privatised. This is the law of the land. While this is a legitimate concern many people have, it is based on falsehood and it cannot happen. I would also like to address the issue of start-up costs of Irish Water, which is important. I accept again that people need reassurance about this issue. That is why it is necessary that such costs be examined by independent experts with experience in utility management. That was part of the job of the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER. The conclusion at which it arrived was that 95% of the establishment costs were justified and 5% of the budgeted costs should not proceed. I accept that it was incorrect to refer to too many of these costs as "consultant" costs. Much of this was related to costs associated with building the company's systems using outside expertise but I reiterate that after all the establishment costs of Irish Water were independently assessed, 95% were justified, warranted and necessary.

See this speech in context